The strength of an application about being held in an overcrowded prison ward does not rest only on showing that the institution is over capacity. The dates on which the person was held, the room, the number of people they lived with, and the enclosed living space, sleeping place, cleaning and ventilation available to them must be set out together. The legal assessment focuses on whether a burden has arisen that goes beyond the unavoidable hardships of deprivation of liberty. A well-prepared file links the concrete demands for better accommodation with the records that confirm them. For more on this subject, see the article on religious freedom and worship in prison.
The current approach of the Constitutional Court (AYM) to the personal-space calculation, and the Grand Chamber judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of 5 May 2026 in Yasak/Türkiye, show that the question cannot be reduced to a square-metre calculation. The assessment below concerns the accommodation conditions of convicted and remand prisoners. It does not replace legal remedies concerning the correctness of a conviction or the lawfulness of pretrial detention. [1] [5] [7]
Humane accommodation is the State's obligation
Article 17 of the Constitution guarantees the material and moral integrity of persons held in penal institutions and their protection against ill-treatment. Article 6 of Law No. 5275 also treats the execution of sentences under material and moral conditions that protect human dignity as the basic principle. The way the institution organises a prisoner's life imposes concrete obligations on the State with regard to health and well-being. Shortages of resources or an increase in the institution's population do not remove the need to examine whether the conditions amount to a violation of rights. [1] [2] A related article, prison searches and the protection of human dignity, may also be read.
Institutional capacity and personal space are different data
An institution's designed capacity, its current population and the usable area of a particular ward do not describe the same thing. Dividing the institution's total area by the total number of prisoners can lead to wrong results, particularly if corridors, administrative sections or areas the person cannot use are counted. The assessment must be based on the room in which the applicant was actually placed and the period they spent there. Two people held in the same institution may have different room measurements, numbers of co-occupants and periods of accommodation.
Over-capacity is an important starting figure. However, this figure must be linked to how intensively the beds, toilets and showers are used, the dining area, access to fresh air and daily freedom of movement. For this reason, it is important that an application gives the person's own conditions before general prison statistics. [5] [7] The related process is also dealt with separately in the article on prison work, wages and social insurance rights.
Not every hardship is weighed equally
When assessing the minimum level of severity under the prohibition of ill-treatment, the duration of the conditions, their physical and psychological effects, age, state of health and other personal characteristics are taken into account. A short-lived disruption is not the same as sleep and hygiene problems that last for months. If a person with a chronic illness has to lie on the floor or has difficulty reaching a toilet, the application may also need to be supported by medical documents. Naming a health problem is not enough on its own; its link to the accommodation arrangement must be explained. [5] For a separate assessment of this issue, see the article on the right to health care and treatment in prison.
How the personal-space calculation is made
Three square metres and the calculation method under the current approach
In Levent Cantekin, the Constitutional Court (AYM) updated its case law and took as its basis a minimum floor area of 3 m² per person in multi-person wards. The calculation leaves out the exercise yard and sanitary sections such as bathrooms and toilets, while the area taken up by furniture is included in the surface area. In addition, whether each prisoner has a separate sleeping place and whether they can move freely between pieces of furniture are assessed separately. Therefore, including a wardrobe and bunk in the surface calculation does not mean that freedom of movement is unimportant. [5]
Some earlier decisions show that the exercise yard was taken into account under certain conditions and that a 4 m² standard was used. In a current application, it is not correct to combine the old figure with the new calculation method. It must also be checked which areas the decision counted at its date. Paragraphs 33–35 of the Levent Cantekin judgment are the clear basis for this change.
A strong presumption of violation below three square metres
If the area per person falls below 3 m², a strong presumption of violation arises. To rebut this presumption, the following must be shown together: the reduction was short-term, small in scale and occasional; it was offset by sufficient movement and activity outside the ward; the institution's general conditions were appropriate; and no additional aggravating factor exists. Explaining a density lasting for months simply by saying the person went out to the yard during the day is not enough. These criteria relate to multi-person accommodation; the same calculation should not be applied automatically to a single-person room. [5] [6]
A violation may also arise above three square metres
In the 3–4 m² range, personal space is examined together with other conditions. A larger area does not make long-term sleep deprivation, the lack of toilet privacy or a serious hygiene problem legally insignificant. The area calculation is one of the starting points of the examination; on its own, it does not produce a finding that the conditions were lawful. [5] [7]
| Element to examine | Useful record to have in the file |
|---|---|
| Enclosed living area | Scaled sketch, room plan and separate measurements of sanitary areas |
| Changes in the number of persons | Ward headcount by date range and placement records |
| Sleeping conditions | Number of bunks and beds, periods of sleeping on the floor, explanation of any alternating use |
| Hygiene and air | Water cuts, shower access, cleaning requests and times of access to the exercise yard |
| Effect on health | Examination records, reports and the recommended accommodation arrangement |
Examining bed, hygiene and ventilation problems together
Providing a person with a bed is not in every case the same as ensuring suitable sleeping conditions. The position of the bed, night-time lighting in the room, constant movement and noise, any requirement to remove the bed during the day, and how long this arrangement lasted must all be explained. Likewise, the existence of a shower in the institution does not by itself show that it was usable with sufficient frequency and within a reasonable time. [5] [7]
How often and for how long the problem occurred must be recorded
When preparing an application, it is useful to keep a dated table. For example, periods with no hot water at all should be separated from periods when hot water was given only on certain days. The reason why the time allowed in the exercise yard on paper differs from actual use should be explained. Unknown measurements should not be fixed by estimation; it should be stated which information rests on direct observation and which should be requested from the institution.
Requests for access to evidence held by the institution must be specific
It is common for a prisoner not to be able to obtain architectural plans or past ward occupancy figures. In such a case, the application should not be left abstract on the ground that documents are unavailable. It can state clearly which records for which dates it asks the institution to produce. The minutes in hand, the petition receipt, medical reports and the statements of people who observed the same conditions can complement one another. The Yasak judgment also shows the importance of public authorities, which have better access to evidence, providing sufficient explanation and proof for concrete allegations. [7]
Limits shown by real court decisions
Different outcomes within the same file in Levent Cantekin
In the decision of the AYM General Assembly dated 9 October 2024, application no. 2019/34408, the applicant was found to have been provided with less than 3 m² for a total of 102 days, and a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment was found for that period. By contrast, the period in the 3–4 m² range was assessed together with the other accommodation conditions, and no violation was found for that period. [5]
The decision shows the importance of not reducing the whole detention period to a single average. The claim that no new bed was provided despite a medical report was not examined, because it had not been raised before the relevant authorities and the report had not been submitted. A separate complaint about the delivery of clothing was also found inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation. A strong accommodation claim does not, by itself, prove all the other claims.
Prolonged lack of space in Mehmet Yakut
In the AYM decision of 4 November 2025 in Mehmet Yakut, application no. 2019/31733, a total of 374 days of personal space below 3 m² was identified. Because some reductions lasted without interruption for 55, 65, 102 and 114 days, they could not be regarded as short, small or occasional, and a violation was found for that period. In the period of about four months within the 3–4 m² range, however, no violation was found after the other conditions were evaluated. [6]
Because the applicant was no longer in the institution complained of, no legal interest was found in a retrial, and non-pecuniary damages of 225,000 Turkish lira (TL) were awarded. This amount is not a daily-rate schedule. Since the period, conditions, harm and need for redress will differ in other files, it cannot be assumed that the same amount will be awarded. For more detail, see the article on transfer from one prison to another.
Review beyond square metres in the Yasak judgment
In Yasak/Türkiye (No. 17389/20, 5 May 2026), the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR found by 9 votes to 8 that Article 3 of the Convention had been violated in respect of the accommodation conditions. The personal space was assessed as lying between 3.6 and 6 m², and the strong presumption linked to falling below 3 m² was not applied. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of the overcrowded environment over about four years, a total of about fourteen months spent sleeping on the floor in a shared area, night lighting, noise and other conditions was decisive for the finding of a violation. [7]
The dissenting opinion did not join the majority's assessment in a file where the area did not fall below 3 m² and some general conditions were appropriate. This disagreement does not change the majority's ruling, but it shows that the file must be read with all of its facts. A 2024 Chamber assessment should not be relied on alone; the 2026 Grand Chamber judgment must be taken into account. The part of the judgment concerning the legality of offences and penalties is outside the scope of this article. On that subject, the article on education and sitting examinations in prison may be consulted.
How the application route and time limits are protected
Complaint to the enforcement judgeship for continuing conditions
Article 4 of Law No. 4675 places the review of decisions and practices on detention and living conditions within the institution among the duties of the enforcement judgeship. A complaint must be made within fifteen days of learning of the matter and, in any event, within thirty days of the act or activity. Where conditions continue, the starting point and the subject of the complaint must be assessed separately. It is incorrect to postpone the application indefinitely on the ground that the problem is ongoing. [3]
A petition to the administration should not merely say that the ward is crowded. It should set out demands such as correcting the accommodation arrangement, providing a suitable bed, placement appropriate to the person's health, and review of the relevant records. It should not be assumed that an application to the administration always suspends the statutory complaint period. For details of the procedure, see our guide to applying to and objecting to the enforcement judgeship.
Objection and interim protection
Under the current legislation, an objection to an enforcement judgeship decision can be made within two weeks of notification. A complaint does not automatically stop the decision from being implemented. Where a result that is difficult or impossible to remedy and a clear breach of law exist together, postponement or suspension may be requested. In a request concerning inadequate living space, it must also be shown which interim measure would provide actual protection. [3] For a detailed explanation, reading the article on complaints and objections against disciplinary penalties in prison is useful.
Individual application and separate assessment of compensation
Once the ordinary and effective remedies have been exhausted, the 30-day AYM time limit running from learning of the final decision must be observed. The application should contain the chronology of events, the claims raised before the earlier authorities, the decisions, and the records of notification or of when the applicant learned of them. An independent complaint submitted to the AYM for the first time may not be examined, because the remedies were not exhausted. [4]
If the conditions complained of have ended, the need for redress changes. The transfer or release date, the remedies used previously and the type of damage claimed are separately examined in relation to compensation. The fact that compensation was awarded in the AYM decisions discussed here does not mean that every person may bypass the ordinary judicial remedies and claim money directly from the AYM. The unlawfulness of accommodation conditions and the requirements for compensation for unjustified detention should not be confused either.
Linking events, documents and demands in an effective file
The first part of the application should be built around the rooms and date ranges. The second part should show, for each problem, the existing document and the record to be requested. The third part should explain the protection being sought. Ward records supporting a request to reduce the number of occupants and a report supporting a request for a suitable bed because of an orthopaedic condition should not get lost within the same general claim.
In a hypothetical example, if after the sanitary sections are excluded, 24 people live in an enclosed area of 60 m², the area per person is 2.5 m². The 40 m² exercise yard of the ward is not added to this calculation. Access to the yard, however, keeps its importance as a separate condition in the assessment. If the number of occupants later falls to 18, the new period is calculated separately. This example is not a finding about a real file and is not a guarantee of a violation; it shows the method to be used. [5]
The aim of the application may not be only a finding that something was unlawful in the past. If the problem continues, the provision of appropriate conditions is needed; if it has ended, the identification of effective redress is needed. This distinction should be made at the outset of the file, within the legal assessment in the field of enforcement law.
Conclusion
In a complaint about an overcrowded ward, a strong file connects the current personal-space calculation with sleep, hygiene, health and ventilation conditions. Presenting the square-metre figure alone as a conclusive result, or relying only on the institution's general occupancy, leaves the case incomplete. Dividing the conditions into periods, requesting the institution's records and protecting the statutory time limits are as decisive for obtaining effective redress as establishing a violation. Related reading: the article on camera recording and privacy in prison.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is three square metres per prisoner in prison enough?
Not on its own. Sleeping place, freedom of movement and other accommodation conditions are also assessed. The Grand Chamber judgment in Yasak shows that, even in areas above 3 m², the cumulative effect of conditions may amount to a violation.
Is the exercise yard added to the personal-space calculation?
Not under the method updated in Levent Cantekin. Sanitary areas such as bathrooms and toilets are also left out; the area occupied by furniture is included in the surface area.
Is sleeping on the floor alone an automatic ground for compensation?
No, it does not produce an automatic result. The duration, the position of the bed, sleep quality, privacy and other conditions are assessed concretely. The appropriate application route and the claimed harm are also examined when compensation is considered.
What is the time limit for objecting to an enforcement judgeship decision?
Under the current Law No. 4675, it is two weeks from notification. The seven-day period found in older sources should not be applied to current applications.
Does transfer to another institution remove the alleged violation?
It does not automatically remove an alleged violation that occurred in the past; it affects the redress that can be sought. In the Mehmet Yakut decision, the AYM found no legal interest in a retrial and awarded non-pecuniary damages.
Sources and legal bases
- Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye, in particular Articles 17, 36 and 40.
- Law No. 5275, in particular Articles 6, 63, 64 and 71.
- Law No. 4675 on Enforcement Judgeships, Articles 4–6.
- Law No. 6216, Articles 45, 47, 48 and 50.
- AYM, Levent Cantekin [GK], Application No. 2019/34408, 9 October 2024, in particular §§ 21–23 and 29–47.
- AYM, Mehmet Yakut, Application No. 2019/31733, 4 November 2025, in particular §§ 18–33.
- ECtHR, Yasak/Türkiye [GC], No. 17389/20, 5 May 2026, in particular §§ 229–247 and the relevant dissenting opinion; official full text in French.